The e-Procurement platform sends a wrong deadline — the authority excludes the tender but forgets to examine the consequences of its own error
The Council of State annuls Nautisport's decision to exclude a tender for late submission, because the delay was caused by an erroneous deadline on the e-Procurement platform and the authority failed to examine the consequences of that error in light of the equality and proportionality principles.
What happened?
Nautisport tendered an architectural services contract for a multisports complex renovation. The invitation to tender stated a deadline of 2 July 2024, but the official e-Procurement platform automatically emailed all invited candidates with a deadline of 18 July 2024. Arcadus Architecte and Arcadis Belgium submitted before 18 July — the date received from the platform. The authority excluded their offer as late. The award report noted the platform error but did not analyse its consequences. The Council ruled that tenderers could legitimately rely on the date communicated by the official submission platform. All candidates received the same erroneous date, offers were only opened on 18 July, and there was no risk of information leakage. The authority should have examined whether equality and proportionality required accepting the offer. By automatically excluding it, the authority committed a manifest error of assessment. After the suspension, the authority did not request continuation. The Council annulled via the accelerated procedure. The subsequent re-award was also annulled (arrest 264.693) for improper committee composition.
Why does this matter?
This ruling is highly relevant for anyone working with e-Procurement. When the official platform communicates an erroneous deadline, the authority cannot blindly apply the original date without examining the consequences. The equality and proportionality principles require a concrete assessment — not automatic exclusion.
The lesson
For contracting authorities: if the e-Procurement platform communicates a wrong deadline, you cannot automatically exclude an offer submitted based on that date. Examine: did all candidates receive the same date? Is there a risk of information leakage? Does proportionality require accepting the offer? For tenderers: if you relied on the official platform's date, you have a strong prima facie argument against exclusion.
Ask yourself
Are you excluding an offer as late when the delay was caused by a platform error? Did you examine whether all candidates received the same erroneous date and whether exclusion is proportionate?
About this database
The Council of State (Raad van State / Conseil d'État) is Belgium's supreme administrative court. In disputes over public procurement — from contract awards to tenderer exclusions — the Council of State is the final arbiter. The rulings in this database are summarised by TenderWolf in plain language, with practical lessons for tenderers and contracting authorities. View all rulings →